mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) (01/03/91)
In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: > When the purpose of a closed group is to support its members when >in a larger context those members are being stomped on by the social >structures in their lives, that's an inclusionary group. That is a >powerful move towards disrupting a sexist, heterosexist, racist, etc. >status quo. When a group is existing to reinforce that same status >quo - that's _exclusionary_. So will you support a single sex group that believes it's being stomped on by the changing social structure? (note that they may be just as uncomfortble discussing sexism and other issues with women around as your woman's group. >Until I do, I see no reason not to >assume that you who oppose women-only groups in all circumstances are >just defending a sexist status quo. Hmm, Ok. I'm worried about the leagal results of allowing all-female groups but not all-male groups. I'm a tremendous believer in social momnetum, and am not willing to give females a legal advantage now, because when it comes to the time when I believe that it's no longer needed I don't believe that it will get repealed. You see oppression is (IMHO) largely subjective, and I suspect that it is very possible to have two groups which each believe that they're getting the worse half of the bargain. -mike